Should Bush veto Troop Withdrawal Legislation?

Should Bush veto Troop Withdrawal Legislation

  • Total voters
    0
#27
#27
JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! said:
amen brother.....:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Double amen, we should continue the current path we're on with Iran. Maybe we can scare them into making those nuclear bombs a little faster. The current administration is doing a wonderful job with them. Don't change anything.
 
#28
#28
OWB said:
Double amen, we should continue the current path we're on with Iran. Maybe we can scare them into making those nuclear bombs a little faster. The current administration is doing a wonderful job with them. Don't change anything.
Click to expand...

The word now is that we are pursuing the first 1 on 1 talks with Iran in 28 years.
 
#29
#29
Also, there is evidence that the economic isolation and sanctions we've imposed are causing internal pressure on Ahmedinijad.
 
#31
#31
GAVol said:
The word now is that we are pursuing the first 1 on 1 talks with Iran in 28 years.
Click to expand...

volinbham said:
Also, there is evidence that the economic isolation and sanctions we've imposed are causing internal pressure on Ahmedinijad.
Click to expand...

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

Funny how Iran has everything that W claimed Iraq had before the invasion and he's trying to talk it out with Iran. That speaks volumes.
 
#32
#32
How is me telling you a fact "drinking Kool Aid"? You said we were going down the same path with Iran that we did with Iraq . . . That's not quite true.
 
#35
#35
OWB said:
Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

Funny how Iran has everything that W claimed Iraq had before the invasion and he's trying to talk it out with Iran. That speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

Great point.

Bush invaded Iraq because he thought they had nuclear weapons and they didn't. He know's Iran is about 2 months away from having a nuclear weapon and he wants to negotiate. :crazy:
 
#36
#36
And to add to that, all of the complaints about "Clinton letting this happen on his watch" are applicable to Bush since much of this development has happened under the watch of W. The same goes for N Korea. So if something happens would W get the blame as Clinton did for quite a bit for 9/11?
 
#37
#37
oklavol said:
Great point.

Bush invaded Iraq because he thought they had nuclear weapons and they didn't. He know's Iran is about 2 months away from having a nuclear weapon and he wants to negotiate. :crazy:
Click to expand...
Do you live in a vacuum or something?

If you are trying to draw a conclusion that Bush's behavior towards Iraq in 2002 and 2003 is inconsistent with his behavior towards Iran in 2006 and 2007, then you are simply ignorant of all that has transpired over the past four years.

Had the Iraq War been an acclaimed success, then our troops would have been inside of Iran in 2006.

However, the Iraq War is not an acclaimed success. This has led to the body politic that has the power to declare war being overturned to the political party that wants nothing to do with more wars (I am not applying any moral judgment, just making a statement of truth.) Therefore, Bush can either sit around and do nothing, since we will not be able to use force against Iran, or he can focus more on diplomacy.

Yet, if any of you actually believe that diplomacy, short of war, is going to lead to a disarmament of Iran, then you are sorely mistaken.

The current Iranian Regime will fall through force. The only question that remains is who will apply that force. It does not look like the US will. The two remaining players are Israel and the Iranians themselves.
 
#38
#38
therealUT said:
Do you live in a vacuum or something?

If you are trying to draw a conclusion that Bush's behavior towards Iraq in 2002 and 2003 is inconsistent with his behavior towards Iran in 2006 and 2007, then you are simply ignorant of all that has transpired over the past four years.

Had the Iraq War been an acclaimed success, then our troops would have been inside of Iran in 2006.

However, the Iraq War is not an acclaimed success. This has led to the body politic that has the power to declare war being overturned to the political party that wants nothing to do with more wars (I am not applying any moral judgment, just making a statement of truth.) Therefore, Bush can either sit around and do nothing, since we will not be able to use force against Iran, or he can focus more on diplomacy.

Yet, if any of you actually believe that diplomacy, short of war, is going to lead to a disarmament of Iran, then you are sorely mistaken.

The current Iranian Regime will fall through force. The only question that remains is who will apply that force. It does not look like the US will. The two remaining players are Israel and the Iranians themselves.
Click to expand...

:salute: WELL SAID!!
 
#39
#39
therealUT said:
Do you live in a vacuum or something?

If you are trying to draw a conclusion that Bush's behavior towards Iraq in 2002 and 2003 is inconsistent with his behavior towards Iran in 2006 and 2007, then you are simply ignorant of all that has transpired over the past four years.

Had the Iraq War been an acclaimed success, then our troops would have been inside of Iran in 2006.

However, the Iraq War is not an acclaimed success. This has led to the body politic that has the power to declare war being overturned to the political party that wants nothing to do with more wars (I am not applying any moral judgment, just making a statement of truth.) Therefore, Bush can either sit around and do nothing, since we will not be able to use force against Iran, or he can focus more on diplomacy.

Yet, if any of you actually believe that diplomacy, short of war, is going to lead to a disarmament of Iran, then you are sorely mistaken.

The current Iranian Regime will fall through force. The only question that remains is who will apply that force. It does not look like the US will. The two remaining players are Israel and the Iranians themselves.
Click to expand...

So you think we would have invaded Iran? Saying Iran's regime is even somewhat related to or similar to what we deposed in Iraq is ludicrous. Iran is much closer to a democracy than Iraq. All it takes is a few mass student demonstrations to get the mullahs to move closer to the center.

Perhaps coming to the table is Bush seeing that there is far reaching damage to what we can actually do in the region. We were seen as liberators immediately after Saddam was deposed. We had much political capital in the region. Now after 4 years, we've lost all and we're the equivalent of Israel in the region.

If either nation (US or Israel) uses force then you can best be assured that WWIII or whatever title you want to apply will happen.
 
#40
#40
CSpindizzy said:
So you think we would have invaded Iran? Saying Iran's regime is even somewhat related to or similar to what we deposed in Iraq is ludicrous. Iran is much closer to a democracy than Iraq. All it takes is a few mass student demonstrations to get the mullahs to move closer to the center.

Perhaps coming to the table is Bush seeing that there is far reaching damage to what we can actually do in the region. We were seen as liberators immediately after Saddam was deposed. We had much political capital in the region. Now after 4 years, we've lost all and we're the equivalent of Israel in the region.

If either nation (US or Israel) uses force then you can best be assured that WWIII or whatever title you want to apply will happen.
Click to expand...
I absolutely believe that we would have invaded Iran. Regardless of the centrist and secular leanings of a great majority of Iranian youth, Iran is the epicenter, and has been since 1976, of the Islamic terrorism philosophy.

There is much more credible evidence connecting Iran to nuclear weapons than there ever was connecting Iraq to WMD. Iran also has a very vocal and educated youth, that strongly desires political reform. Yet, they have not shown the capability to impose their will to achieve such reform. Add that to the fact military situation, invade with the XVIII Airborned Corps from Afghanistan and the III Corps from Iraq, and you have a swift and punishing victory.

This victory would most likely have been followed by a government that is friendly to the west, holding as a base of power which connects the Middle East to Asia, as well as holds the key to future energy consumption.

Bush would have pushed for a diplomatic settlement, on his terms, for maybe a year. However, if Ahmadinejad decided against bargaining, then nothing would have kept us from going in.
 
#41
#41
therealUT said:
There is much more credible evidence connecting Iran to nuclear weapons than there ever was connecting Iraq to WMD. Iran also has a very vocal and educated youth, that strongly desires political reform. Yet, they have not shown the capability to impose their will to achieve such reform. Add that to the fact military situation, invade with the XVIII Airborned Corps from Afghanistan and the III Corps from Iraq, and you have a swift and punishing victory.

This victory would most likely have been followed by a government that is friendly to the west, holding as a base of power which connects the Middle East to Asia, as well as holds the key to future energy consumption.
Click to expand...

Why does this sound like the same line we were fed in 2002? Swift and punishing victory....shock and awe...they will greet us in the streets with roses...amazing how such optimism fades away due to reality.
 
#42
#42
CSpindizzy said:
Why does this sound like the same line we were fed in 2002? Swift and punishing victory....shock and awe...they will greet us in the streets with roses...amazing how such optimism fades away due to reality.
Click to expand...
What indicators tell you that if we had overtly and swiftly succeeded in Iraq that these same lines would not be fed again to justify action against Iran?

I am not arguing that we should have or should not have taken action against Iran. I am simply trying to state my opinion of what would have happened.
 
#43
#43
On the original topic, the Dems come out the winners since they essentially fulfill their agenda in pushing Bush to bring the troops home. They did their part. They establish a timetable that brings them home sooner than would be without the bill. They can now essentially lay this solely at the feet of Bush and wash their hands of however they originally voting to authorize the action. This is all posturing with the result known far ahead of time.
 
#44
#44
therealUT said:
Do you live in a vacuum or something?

If you are trying to draw a conclusion that Bush's behavior towards Iraq in 2002 and 2003 is inconsistent with his behavior towards Iran in 2006 and 2007, then you are simply ignorant of all that has transpired over the past four years.

Had the Iraq War been an acclaimed success, then our troops would have been inside of Iran in 2006.

However, the Iraq War is not an acclaimed success. This has led to the body politic that has the power to declare war being overturned to the political party that wants nothing to do with more wars (I am not applying any moral judgment, just making a statement of truth.) Therefore, Bush can either sit around and do nothing, since we will not be able to use force against Iran, or he can focus more on diplomacy.

Yet, if any of you actually believe that diplomacy, short of war, is going to lead to a disarmament of Iran, then you are sorely mistaken.

The current Iranian Regime will fall through force. The only question that remains is who will apply that force. It does not look like the US will. The two remaining players are Israel and the Iranians themselves.
Click to expand...


It was a colossal misstep by Bush to go into Iraq. They only justification for it might have been if they had nuclear weapons.

Now Iran who actually has the capability or will have to produce a nuclear weapon, Bush has decided to try and use diplomacy.

Well why didn't he use diplomacy before with Iraq, who didn't even have nuclear weapons? Unless your trying to explain what a monumental failure Bush was by invading Iraq in the first place I fail to see your point.

The majority of the people in this country are against having troops in Iraq, the majority of the people in Iraq are against having U.S. troops in Iraq, is it no surprise that the Congress is against the war and want a timetable for them removed? Bush is the only who doesn't care what the opinion of the American people is. Thats only because he's trying to save his presidency from being a monumental failure because of his Iraq war policy. The Republican will spend the next decade trying to recover the seats in Congress they lost because of the war.

Russia, Pakistan, China, India, North Korea all have nuclear weapons. The world hasn't ended yet. Even some renegade Russian republics may have them. Are we going to go and invade all these counties to protect the world from nuclear weapons?
 
#46
#46
Well why didn't he use diplomacy before with Iraq, who didn't even have nuclear weapons? Unless your trying to explain what a monumental failure Bush was by invading Iraq in the first place I fail to see your point.
Click to expand...

if diplomacy wasn't used, what were all those U.N. Resolutions about?
 
#48
#48
We are the world police whether we like it or not. If we do something and don't do the "perfect job" then we will be criticized. If we don't do anything about it then we are considered weak and people take advantage of that. Its a lose lose situation and if Bush signs that legislation then EVERY Islamic radical will be jumping up and down for joy. Its also disturbing when the president of a country applauds one of our political parties, and that is the president of Iran.
 
#49
#49
Do you not think these terrorists applaud Bush for keeping the troops in Iraq? They enjoy this. This is what their purpose is....kill the infidel and become marytrs if need be. So you can keep using the example of one leader applauding the Dems but it does work both ways. Our President is giving them the jihad they want to kill Americans and even train their forces with live fire exercises. We claimed there was a small Al Qaeda training camp in northern Iraq that led us to this war. Well in case you missed it, the whole nation is a training camp for terrorists now.
 
#50
#50
CSpindizzy said:
Do you not think these terrorists applaud Bush for keeping the troops in Iraq? They enjoy this. This is what their purpose is....kill the infidel and become marytrs if need be. So you can keep using the example of one leader applauding the Dems but it does work both ways. Our President is giving them the jihad they want to kill Americans and even train their forces with live fire exercises. We claimed there was a small Al Qaeda training camp in northern Iraq that led us to this war. Well in case you missed it, the whole nation is a training camp for terrorists now.
Click to expand...

The whole nation was before anyways, so that's not news. I don't have a problem with pulling out the troops, but not on a timetable. I just know that this is another Vietnam and pretty soon no one will have ANY faith in us.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top